On 12/26/2018 05:05 PM, Paul Rogers via blfs-support wrote:
In theory, BLFS is a rolling release, and therefore everybody
updates everything. I suggest that in practice nobody updates
everything.
Au contraire. I do. I'd rather take the time and have everything consistent
than end up even once having an obscure failure over some inconsistency.
Documentation is virtually never entirely trustworthy, Packages that haven't
changed already have functioning built scripts, so that's just spending cycles.
Packages that have, have nearly ready build scripts. That I have to go
through the book to check it all out and make updates is just good business.
In that case, I'll expect you to start notiying us of breakages from
updates to random packages ;-)
I thought I was being clear, but apparently not. I am a contrarian from your
suggestion. I subscribe to the theory and rebuild everything every time I
build a new LFS. It's just easier that way. Machine cycles are cheap,
debugging time is expensive.
And we do that as a part of the release process for every *stable*
version of BLFS, fixing issues as we go. Of course that doen't catch
every possible error. If you build packages in a different order or
omit/include optional dependencies, results will probably differ. It
really not possible to build everything using every combination of
package order.
Generally I try to build everything with all internal dependencies and
omit external dependencies, but sometimes I have to make exceptions.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
